Ultra high net worth and how much to leave to kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30M is not ultra high net worth. Weird post.

OK, Donald

Yeah, gotta agree. $30M is a whole lot of money. Whether it’s “ultra” or not is really semantics.

[Anonymous]

Definitely watch Knives Out before you decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't call 50M an ultra high net worth. Which is what makes me inclined to think this isn't a real poster. Ultra high is multiple hundreds of millions into the billions. People with 50M know this.

Second, very, very, very few genuinely wealthy people genuinely don't believe in generational wealth. They may talk it but in reality they will leave their children very comfortably off. Generational wealth is only a modern buzzword that's no more than a few years old, preying on liberal white guilt in the DEI age.

17M per child (I'm assuming this is post tax) is unquestionably a nice sum of money. But it's not ultra high net worth. It will allow each child to own a nice 2-3M house plus another 2-3M summer house and the rest tied up in investments generating a nice income for what will be generously comfortable, affluent life. But you're not owning private jets or buying a 10M summer house on Nantucket or living in Kalorama.

If you are real, in reality what will happen is you'll help each kid get launched, buy their first house, pay for the grandkids' education, and when the time comes, each kid inherits 10M while the rest is donated. It's not that complicated. See your financial planners.

50 Million is ultra high networth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30M is not ultra high net worth. Weird post.

It is the textbook definition of the low end of UHNW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30M is not ultra high net worth. Weird post.

It is the textbook definition of the low end of UHNW

exactly.

[Anonymous]

What if you have a very disabled grandchild who could not benefit like the others from free college? Would you want one kid spending thousands on therapies, specialized care, expensive trained sitters just to get a break knowing her kid gets nothing because he had a traumatic birth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if you have a very disabled grandchild who could not benefit like the others from free college? Would you want one kid spending thousands on therapies, specialized care, expensive trained sitters just to get a break knowing her kid gets nothing because he had a traumatic birth?

Op here. That a trust exclusively for higher education would benefit some descendants more than other does not bother me.

[Anonymous]

As an adult “kid” from one of these families, you all dramatically overestimate the extent to which restricting a trust in just the right way could change a person’s priorities.

The people who really struggle continue to really struggle whether they have the money or not.

The people like me who use it to work less or not at all (I’m a SAHM) were not on the cusp of career greatness. Without it, I’d just be making power points somewhere. Nothing important.

The main thing it does for me besides letting me stay home for several years with babies is provide a backstop for major expenses involving kids and tragedy. Illness, disability, death. I don’t worry about the financial side of those things because I know I could tap the multi-generation trust.

You can’t control your kids and grandkids from the grave with perfectly worded trust rules and really, what’s the point? You’re dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if you have a very disabled grandchild who could not benefit like the others from free college? Would you want one kid spending thousands on therapies, specialized care, expensive trained sitters just to get a break knowing her kid gets nothing because he had a traumatic birth?

If that occurred while I am still alive, I would direct extra funds towards that GK/family. And I'd hope my family has enough empathy and kindness to understand why and be supportive.